Totally agree
I wrote a couple of posts this week mentioning that there are opportunities offered by well known theatre/institutions for local people that often are overlooked and with no many children attending. My dc did the audition for NYMT and 'luckily" didn't make it through, no way I could afford that money times 2. Why I did it in first place if I didn't have the money? To see what all the fuss was about. I do appreciate the high quality but I think that the NYMT auditions are a making money machine. It costs £45 (in my case time 2) for getting a place (not in a prestigious school) but in a very expensive big workshop that look good on your cv at best (unless you are cast in a lead part, maybe). How many kids did audition this year, they had to add a couple of dates to meet the demand? If they were 1,500 that makes £67,500
Plus, I suppose that then you have to pay to see your children performing and then you tell it to family and friends to go as well (free marketing). How much money do they do from your not payed but paying performing children?
At least they could use it to keep it down the price tag of the "workshop"
You know what? I start to be very annoyed with all this "clever" people. I think they have an easy run. It doesn't matter if I am not taking my children anymore in these expensive "opportunities", there are hundreds of children/parents that are fighting over it with cash in hands and plenty for them too choose even with lots of talent.
I wasn't going to comment any further on this but I notice that termdriven has edited her post. I think this is with reference to the word "great" being used in the blog she has pasted a link to.
I agree, termdriven, these things are indeed subjective. It is very, very important to recognise this fact. If one uses superlatives in marketing, one has to expect people to question them. One has to expect someone who does research to work out who is making the value judgements about someone's skills and expertise. In doing this, a sensible person will recognise bias or a lack of impartiality or lack of relevant industry experience to make the judgement. I can have a testimonial saying "pg is a superb actor with a wealth of theatrical experience". If this comes from a director at the RSC that I have worked with, some people might take note. If it comes from my sister (who is very lovely but has no professional theatre experience) then the reaction would be different. If it is said by me, or on my behalf, when I am looking for employment, then I would expect to have to back this up with evidence of my wealth of theatrical experience and a few examples of someone other than me (or my sister) who thought that my acting was superb.
I, for example, note that the word "great" has been used about the casting directors in the blog you refer to. The blog is written by an intern employed to promote a film and "big up" the pre-production to create interest.
As an intern on this project, one of my jobs is to provide a blog providing inside information about the project to you! Follow my blog posts as I reveal my experiences as a newbie in the film industry, as well as information regarding the London 1666 project (who is the director? Who are the producers? Who will be casted? And more!) Stay tuned!
I do appreciate that you have apologised for any unintentional misleading you may have done and think this is both magnanimous and savvy of you - however, you rather undermine this if you then come back to defend your wording or your marketing (as I can't think why else you have edited the post) and can't find a better example than this blog as evidence of someone who shares your value judgement of someone's professional expertise.
It looks as though you still don't really understand what the concerns are.
You also say that this film "will be looking for a young Anna Popplewell (Narnia)". Why describe it in this way? It just looks (again) as though you are name-dropping. If the CD is hoping that Anna Popplewell will be in the film then presumably there's not much point in anyone else applying. If the CD wants someone who is a bit like Anna Popplewell, you could give the casting brief and include her as a reference. If the CD is looking for someone like Susan Pevensie (the character), you could give the casting brief and this reference. Anything else either looks as though you are starstruck or as though you want to attract others who are starstruck. Neither of these things inspire confidence in a production.
There are thousands of young people wanting to act. Thousands who would love the chance to be in a film. At no point do you ever need to pretend to the actors that it is bigger or better connected than it is. Those without industry experience probably won't worry all that much, they will still apply. Those with industry experience will check out your claims.
I would still like to know how Prescience Films (which is linked to the King's Speech as a funder) is linked to David Fielding/London 1666. You have used the King's Speech in your marketing. It's another "connection" that people will investigate. Quite possibly Prescience is funding London 1666 as well. That would be very exciting. If this is so, I would have expected to see some evidence of it somewhere.
If it is not yet firmed up, or if it is confidential - or any other reason why there is no indication of this anywhere - it would be wiser NOT to use this in your marketing, because it makes it look dodgy. If you put Prescience Films and London 1666 into a google search together, do you know what you come up with?
I am locking this topic but not deleting it since I believe it has valuable information within it.
If anyone wants to check the credibility of a casting director I refer them to the Casting Directors Guild. They also have very clear guidelines about how workshops should be run, and what disclaimers need to be made.
